It is, of course, much too late to publish a review of this book. But first, it is an unusually interesting author and text, and, second, the readers should be warned to use Herren's work with caution. I shall confine myself to some brief notes; hopefully, somebody else will publish a thorough examination later on.
Following the usual format of the important series Scriptores Latini Hiberniae, Herren has given us not only a critical text but also a lengthy introduction and a translation, followed by a commentary and extensive indices. The introduction (with bibliography) is interesting and valuable, since it seems to give a rather complete survey of recent scholarship on Iohannes Scottus. The previous edition of his carmina was made by Ludwig Traube (MGH Poetae 3:2 pp. 518 ff.) and Herren rightly asks himself and his readers if a new edition is really called for after the work of the Altmeister. His main reason (p. 14) is that some additions have been made to Iohannes Scottus' poetic oeuvre; he also states that Traube sometimes "printed . . . lines that are metrically defective or lines that make poor sense. In several places I am convinced that the text can be restored by conjectures." Traube's edition is, however, a hard act to follow, and I do not think Herren is the right man to take Traube to task: his own Latin leaves a good deal to be desired, and although Herren writes that he "has been able to bring many more sources to light (i.e. than Traube) with the aid of modern research tools," it is not difficult to add some more. Some examples:
1,71 ff. (p. 60 f.):
Quid tibi baptismus, quid sancta sollempnia missae? Occultis semper nutibus insinuant? Numquid non praecepta simul fraterna tenere, Viribus ac totis vivere corde pio?
"What is baptism to you, and the holy rite of the Mass? Do they wind their way to a heart that is ever dissembling? Why do you not accept this once a brother's biddings and live by them with all your power and a pious heart?" Traube prints (p. 529) the lines 71 and 72 correctly with no punctuation after "missae;" the subject is "baptismus" and "sancta sollempnia," the predicate "insinuant;" this is a rhetorical question, and the answer follows in lines 73 and 74: "What does baptism and the holy rite of the Mass tell you all the time with hidden insinuation? Is it not both to follow your brother's orders and to live by them with all your might and a pious heart?"
2,28 (p. 64 f.) Ebibat hunc fontem vivere quisquis amat; "whoever loves life drinks from this source." "Ebibat" is subjunctive: "should drink."
6,7 (p. 80 f.) ut vidit ruitantia limina fracta; "as soon as he sees the broken threshold in crumbling ruins" (about the devil). "Limen" here means "house" rather than "threshold." --6,10 fortior intravit, qui sua vasa tulit; cf. Matth. 12, 29. --6,25 Ipse libens animam posuit propriamque resumpsit; cf. Ioh. 10,17.
7,1 (p. 82) Lux superans animas hominum superumque deorum, agmina.... No comma after deorum: the genitive superum deorum depends on agmina; Traube is correct.
8,31 (p. 86 f.) Est, non est, super est, qui praestitit omnibus esse; "He is being, non-being, supra-being, he excels all things in respect of being"; I think rather: "...he has given existence to everything"; praestitit is perfect.
9, 4 (p. 90 f.) tergeminae lucis spatio destruxerat ADHN; "He undid Hades in twice-three spaces of alternating light." Oh no! Just "in three days": tergeminus (or trigeminus) means "triple." Don't we say in our creed: "On the third day he rose again from the dead"? --9,10 f.:
O mors, mors vitae, si mors, non vita vocanda (quod praestat vitam, non ausim dicere mortem)...:
"O death, death of life--if death, not life, should be invoked...." Rather: "If it should be called death and not rather life...."
25,54 (p. 118f.) Salve, sancta domus, panis ditissima patrum (to Bethlehem): "Hail, holy house, our fathers' richest bread." How can ditissima modify the masculine panis? Rather: "...house, full of the bread of our fathers.' Bethlehem was etymologized as "domus panis", see M. Thiel, Grundlagen und Gestalt der HebrÉischkenntnisse des frueÄhen Mittelalters (Spoleto 1973) 266 (e.g. Isid. Etym. 15,1,23); not noticed by Herren.
App.1,1 f.. (p. 122 f.):
Caesare sub Karolo Francorum gloria pollet litora ceu pelagi piscibus atque salo;
"The glory of the Franks thrives under the emperor Charles, as the banks of the sea teem with fish and salt." Salum, -i means "sea"; "salt" is sal,-is.
App. 5,2 (p. 124 f.) Non satis expellit frigora lusca focus; "the one-eyed hearth does not quite expel the cold." The manuscript has lusqua domus, and Traube (MGH Poetae 3:2 p. 690) prints lusca domus. The emendation of domus to focus is Herren's own. But isn't focus (in contrast to domus) masculine?
NOTES:
1. For the word-formation, cf. Swedish tredubbel "triple" (literally "three double").
2. Also other translations by Herren have to be used cum grano salis; cf. e.g. my review of his and M. Lapidge's translation of Aldhelm's Prose Works (Cambridge 1979) in ALMA 42 (1982), 193 ff. Walahfrid Strabo's De imagine Tetrici 1.36 f. (MGH Poetae 2 p. 371) blasphemumque dei ipsius sententia mundi/ ignibus aeternis magnaeque addicit abysso is translated by Herren in The Journal of Medieval Latin 1 (1991) p. 132 "and the reproach of God himself and the judgment of the world consign him to eternal flames...." instead of "and the judgment of the world sentences him who blasphemed God to eternal flames...."; etc.